Filed 8/28/17 P. v. Schoop CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION 4

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCHOOP, Defendant and Appellant.

A145306 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C172073)

Appellant Michael Schoop appeals from a 16-year state prison sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to sodomy by means of force or violence in violation of Penal Code section 286, subdivision (c) and his admissions that the offenses occurred on separate occasions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d).[1]

Schoop’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel declared Schoop was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende was being requested instead. Schoop also was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by Schoop personally.

We note that Schoop’s notice of appeal indicates this appeal is both (1) based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea, and (2) a challenge to the validity of Schoop’s plea or admission. The latter requires a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) In his request for certificate of probable cause, Schoop’s trial counsel stated only that the constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds for challenging the legality of Schoop’s no contest plea were “[c]urrently unknown.” The trial court did not rule on Schoop’s request for a certificate of probable cause, so Schoop has not met the prerequisites for challenging the validity of his plea. As noted, appellate counsel in his brief on appeal does not seek to challenge the validity of Schoop’s plea. Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing primarily upon grounds for appeal arising after entry of his plea. Having done so, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

PROCEDURAL AND MATERIAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

A.Facts Underlying Charges[2]

In 1998, Schoop was the head school resource teacher at Fremont’s Mission Valley Elementary School. He worked with special needs students who had learning disabilities. When he was in second grade, John Doe was a special needs student who was required by his classroom teacher to attend supplemental skills training sessions with Schoop in a portable classroom behind the school. John Doe testified that, on four occasions between March and June 1998, Schoop forcibly sodomized him during or after school in the portable classroom. John Doe told no one about these events until 2010, when he disclosed the molestation at a church youth group summer camp. He first reported it to law enforcement in May 2013.

B.Procedural Background

On June 14, 2013, the Alameda County District Attorney charged Schoop with four counts of sodomy in violation of section 286, subdivision (c)(1). After a preliminary hearing, Schoop was held to answer on all counts. On July 25, 2013, the district attorney filed an information charging Schoop with four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by sodomy and four counts of sodomy of a person under 14 with 10 years difference in violation of sections 269, subdivision (a)(3) and section 286, subdivision (c)(1), respectively, with various enhancements. Each aggravated sexual assault count carried a sentence of 15 years to life in state prison. (§ 269, subd. (b).) The information also alleged that each of the offenses occurred on a separate occasion, mandating consecutive sentencing under section 269, subdivision (c). Schoop initially entered not guilty pleas to the charges.

On February 19, 2015, Schoop entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded no contest to counts 2 and 4, sodomy of a person under 14 with 10 years difference by force or violence in violation of section 286(c), and admitted that each offense occurred on a separate occasion within the meaning of section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d). Pursuant to the plea agreement, on April 3, 2015, the trial court sentenced Schoop to serve the aggravated term of eight years in state prison on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 16 years in state prison, with 760 days of credit for time served. The court imposed a $9,600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a probation investigation fee of $250 (§ 1203.1b), a sex offender fine of $800 (§ 290.3, subd. (a)), and suspended a $9,600 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45). The court also ordered that Schoop register as a sex offender (§ 290). The court then dismissed all remaining counts and enhancements.

CONCLUSION BASED ON INDEPENDENT RECORD REVIEW

Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. Schoop was at all times effectively represented by counsel. He freely and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement that very substantially reduced his exposure from life imprisonment to 16 years in state prison. The trial court’s sentence was consistent in every respect with the terms of the plea agreement. The sentence Schoop received, and the restitution fines, fees, assessments, and conditions imposed were consistent with the law.

The judgment is affirmed.

---